This is a very, very brief summary/generalisation of the evolution of the original races. It is just designed to give a very quick to read idea of how we all came to be today.

The original Scandinavian race was the blonde haired, blue eyed, white skinned race (light featured) that originated from Scandinavia some 45,000 to 50,000 years ago.

The Scandinavian race evolved from the Black African race that migrated out of Africa some 125,000 years ago and settled in Scandinavia. 80,000 years of total isolation in Scandinavia and the original Black Africans evolved to the original Scandinavians.

The Indian race also evolved from the Black African race that migrated out of Africa and then settled in India. Tens of thousands of years of isolation in India and the original Black Africans evolved to the original Indians. (Indian = dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin, dark featured)The Oriental race also evolved from the Black African race that migrated out of Africa and then settled in Far East Asia. Tens of thousands of years of isolation in Far East Asia and the original Black Africans evolved to the original Orientals.(Oriental = dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin, dark featured) The Australian Aboriginal race also evolved from the Black African race that migrated out of Africa and then settled in Australia. Tens of thousands of years of isolation in Australia and the original Black Africans evolved to the original Australian Aboriginals.(Australian Aboriginal = dark hair, dark eyes, dark skin, dark featured) 45,000 years ago there was a lot of movement as the Ice-Age pushed these Scandinavians out of Scandinavia. These Scandinavian spread out through Europe and into Asia and in Asia they mixed with the Indians, this formed the Arabic peoples (Indo-Scandinavians).

The Scandinavians also migrated into Far East Asia and mixed with the Orientals forming the Korean/Chinese/Japanese types.Arabic peoples moved back West into North Africa and then up into Spain, Italy and Greece mixing with the Scandinavians that had originally settled there, this formed the original Spanish, Italian and Greek ethnicities. Oriental Scandinavians also moved back West and mixed with the original Scandinavians in Europe forming what we now know as ‘Slavic’ types. What with brown hair and brown eyes being dominant over blonde hair and blue eyes more Scandinavians in Europe became darker. Yes, Europeans are mostly Scandinavian race with varying amounts of Indian race and Oriental race in them which gives many these darker features.

Edited by Admin, : Change title, delete first sentence, see original thread proposal to see this message in it's original form.

The 'Oriental Race'? The 'Scandinavian Race'. Just what does 'race' mean in this context? I cannot come with any sense in which Scandinavians would constitute a race of people.

One thing I think has been missed here is the re-integration with Homo Neanderthalensis at one or more points in human history. There is also some evidence that features we sometimes associate with different ethnic groups have come to the fore and evolved independently and in parallel in isolated groups of humans.

As to whether the narrative ordering is generally correct, I am probably not competent enough to say, but I am a bit skeptical about the idea that Scandinavians remixed back into Europe and elsewhere to make Europeans and Orientals more white. Seems totally bogus to me.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

Race in this context means evolved in total isolation for tens of thousands of years, pure 'like' Scandinavians as we know them today are not a race because they are tainted with foreign genome if you can see what i mean? Today Scandinavians are an 'ethnicity' rather than a race, what i am saying in the beginning 45,000 years ago Scandinavians were a race because they were pure they all had totally blonde hair and blue eyes and white skin and there was no one else like them on the planet! The orientals were dark skinned back 45,000 years ago today oriental are often light skinned as they have scandinavian genome in them (they are part Scandinavian) white skin is genetically dominant over dark skin, do you agree?

You are right NoNuke I did leave out the mixing with the Neanderthals at various points in our evolution. There will be things that have evolved independently of our isolated human groups but i still think it mostly is due to those original 'five root races' for us being the way we are today.

I personally cannot see any other way to explain why europeans have somewhat darker features down South other than the explanation that 'they are more indian 'racially'!

The book of Genesis mentions three of Adam and Eve's children: Cain, Abel and Seth.

But geneticists, by tracing the DNA patterns found in people throughout the world, have now identified lineages descended from 10 sons of a genetic Adam and 18 daughters of Eve.

How is this affected by the fact that we are all descended more directly from Noah's family than Adam and Eve? Of course their genes come down through Noah's family but the emphasis on Adam and Eve suggests the bottleneck isn't taken into account.

How is this affected by the fact that we are all descended more directly from Noah's family than Adam and Eve?

Perhaps it is not clear, but the 'genetic' Adam and genetic 'Eve' referred to in RAZD's comment were not contemporaries, but lived many thousands of years apart at some point estimated to be more than 50000 years ago and likely more than double that. The 10 son and 18 daughter diversity is far more than could be expected from a recent Adam and Eve or a Noah as described in the Bible. And that's just taking into account our common ancestors flowing exclusively through male or female lines. We have far more common and uncommon ancestors.

If RAZD neglects to mention Noah, it is because taking Noah into account makes the prospect that reality matches a literal reading of the Bible even more far fetched.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Je Suis Charlie

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

There is one glaring problem with your proposal. There isn't a shred of any evidence to support it.

It's the sort of idea which was popular 150 years ago or so, but that's because 150 years ago archaeology was in its infancy and genetics didn't exist. In the absence of much in the way of useful evidence, there wasn't much solution except to make things up off the top of your head. Especially in the absence of genetic evidence, the most obvious ways to divide people up was based on their most obvious external features - things like skin colour.

Thing is, the origin of different skin colours doesn't require thousands of years of seperation. As pointed out upthread by Coyote, the distribution of skin colour shades correlates remarkably well with latitude - higher latitude populations have lighter skin. The most common explanation one is the simple one - more melanin (and hence darker skin) protects against the harmful effects of UV; but it also hampers UV's benefical effects - UV catalyses vitamin D-12 synthesis. This means that the further you get away from the equator (and hence a lot of sun), the less dark skin has to be to protect you from harmful doses of UV, but the lighter it has to be to allow enough UV for effective vitamin D synthesis.

Ignoring very recent population movements, there are a few populations that buck this trend - black people in southern Africa, for example, and light-skinned people in tropical south-east Asia. As it happens, though, both these cases match well with archaeologically and linguistically evidenced recent population expansions (with 'recent' meaning in the last few thousand years) - the spread of Bantu farmers from equatorial Africa southwards, and the spread of Austronesian farmers from China. There are a few other odd cases - Tasmanian aboriginals were darker than you would expect, for example - but on the whole the picture holds up.

This skin colour distribution doesn't require isolation to evolve, either. The distribution was maintained by natural selection - peoples with light skin colour would be at a selective disadvantage at the equator, so the alleles for light skin would be selected out over the years in equatorial populations, no matter how much people interbred with neighbouring populations.

And people did (and do) interbreed with neighbouring populations. The level of genetic diversity in modern humans is surprisingly low for such a widely-distributed species. This is the most commonly presented piece of evidence for the idea that the modern human population is the result of a rapid population expansion from somewhere in Africa within the last 70,000 years, with only limited genetic contribution from populations elsewhere.

If what I am saying is not true then how come so many Arabic peoples and many Chinese type peoples have light skin even when they come from very sunny climates? It clearly is because light skin is dominant over dark skin. They are mixed race.

Why would a people who evolved in the baking deserts of Asia have evolved light skin. The answer is they didn't evolve there. They are a mix of the original Scandinavian race and the original Indian race!

If what I am saying is not true then how come so many Arabic peoples and many Chinese type peoples have light skin even when they come from very sunny climates? It clearly is because light skin is dominant over dark skin. They are mixed race.

The Great Wall of China:

Light skin is common in China because China is quite far north. Modern China extends from about 20° to about 55° North - equivalent to northern Africa to southern Scandinavia; or from Mexico to Alaska. Now it is true that light skin extends farther south than would be expected if we just looked at latitude, but that was one of the two big exceptions to the pattern I mentioned. The problem goes away if we accept the standard hypothesis that famers spread rapidly from China throughout southeast Asia and the Pacific in the recent past, as archaeology seems to demonstrate.

Why would a people who evolved in the baking deserts of Asia have evolved light skin. The answer is they didn't evolve there. They are a mix of the original Scandinavian race and the original Indian race!

You are correct that Arabic populations seem to have lighter skin colours than you'd predict from UV (look at page 18 of this article if you want some numbers - this is calculated based on actual UV exposure rather than simply latitude). This could well be the result of recent population movements, but the problem with your model (northern Europeans moving into West Asia) is the same as I pointed out before - there's no evidence for it. On the contrary, we have evidence for people moving the other way - agriculturalists from the Middle East colonised Europe in the last 10,000 years. The Middle East has been at the crossroads of various conquering empires in historical times, as well as the centre of trading routes linking Africa, Europe and Asia, so the population movements caused by this could be something to do with it. That's just my speculation though.

First, welcome to EVC! Here all hypotheses will be scrutinized by some very well-educated and skeptical reviewers. If it passes their review, you may be onto something.

Unfortunately, I bear additional bad news.

You lost me here early on:

joecuddles writes:

The Scandinavian race evolved from the Black African race that migrated out of Africa some 125,000 years ago and settled in Scandinavia. 80,000 years of total isolation in Scandinavia and the original Black Africans evolved to the original Scandinavians.

Jump to the middle of this Wiki article to see what some parts of the Earth were under during the time period you propose, aka the last glacial period, to see the extent of glaciation in Scandinavia

People throughout history are noticeably absent from populating the interior of miles thick ice sheets for a simple reason -- there ain't a damn thing to eat.

RAZD showed how genetics and archeology, not speculation on race, informs us of past migrations while caffeine shows the very concept of race is obsolete.

And now geology.

I think your hypothesis may need some modification as last I understand, Jon is studying linguistics and may chime in as well.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon